In re: T.C.
Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary
Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Supreme Court of Alabama?
Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More ›
You already receive new opinion summaries from Supreme Court of Alabama. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.
The Supreme Court granted T.C.s writ of certiorari to review an issue of first impression: interpretation of 12-15-601, Ala. Code 1975, a part of the 2008 Alabama Juvenile Justice Act, which became effective January 1, 2009 (the 2008 AJJA). Specifically, the question was whether the 2008 AJJA provided for an appeal from an interlocutory order. On March 11, 2010, the juvenile court issued an order awarding the maternal grandparents pendente lite custody of the child and ordering the Department of Human Resources to complete home studies on both the parents and the maternal grandparents. The mother was allowed supervised visitation, and an attorney was appointed to represent her. The juvenile court entered another more detailed order continuing the award of pendente lite custody of the child to the maternal grandparents and awarding the mother and the father supervised visitation pending a hearing on dependency. An attorney was appointed to represent the father. The juvenile court entered another pendente lite order continuing custody of the child with the maternal grandparents and denying the fathers motion to modify that aspect of the order awarding supervised visitation. Subsequently, the trial court found the child dependent based on the fathers prescription drug abuse, and a suggestion that the mother had died. The father then appealed. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court concluded that had the legislature intended to provide for appeals from an order finding a child dependent, it could have easily done so without the unintended consequences of allowing all nonfinal orders in juvenile cases to be appealable. Accordingly, the Court did not interpret the omission of the word final from 12-15-601 as indicating an intent on the part of the legislature to allow every interlocutory juvenile court order to be appealable. Therefore, when the legislature enacted the 2008 AJJA (revising, reorganizing, and repealing parts of the former AJJA) it may not have referred to the right to appeal from a final judgment or order, but merely referred to the right to appeal a judgment or order. That language choice, however, does not reflect the legislatures intent to make all orders in juvenile proceedings appealable. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the judgment dismissing the fathers appeal as being a nonfinal judgment.
Download PDF
REL:05/25/2012 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , A l a b a m a A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ( ( 3 3 4 ) 2 2 9 ¬ 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA OCTOBER TERM, 2011-2012 1110250 Ex p a r t e T.C. PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF C I V I L APPEALS (In r e : T.C. v. Mac. M. a n d Mar. M.) ( J e f f e r s o n J u v e n i l e C o u r t , Bessemer D i v i s i o n , JU-10-700092; C o u r t o f C i v i l A p p e a l s , 2100037) BOLIN, Justice. We g r a n t e d of first Code T.C.'s w r i t impression, 1975, a p a r t of certiorari t o review an i s s u e t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f § 12-15-601, o f t h e 2008 Alabama J u v e n i l e Ala. J u s t i c eA c t , 1110250 which became effective January 1, 2009 Specifically, the q u e s t i o n i s whether for from an a p p e a l an i n t e r l o c u t o r y ( " t h e 2008 t h e 2008 A J J A M a r . M. ( " t h e m a t e r n a l parents, father"). child J.D.C. The m a t e r n a l ("the that pending On M a r c h a and sought T.C. for theparents. determination on 11, 2010, t h e j u v e n i l e the c h i l d complete home The m a t e r n a l their custody dependency court studies on b o t h the parents issued an custody and t h e m a t e r n a l The m o t h e r was a l l o w e d s u p e r v i s e d v i s i t a t i o n , a n a t t o r n e y was a p p o i n t e d t o r e p r e s e n t h e r . 2010, the t r i a l 2010, the juvenile continuing of the a n d o r d e r i n g t h e D e p a r t m e n t o f Human R e s o u r c e s t o grandparents. and ("the custody order awarding t h e maternal grandparents pendente l i t e of A.J.C. of the drug use of the a l s o moved f o r an a w a r d o f p e n d e n t e l i t e the c h i l d petition. alleging mother") grandparents and s u p e r v i s e d v i s i t a t i o n grandparents of a petition c h i l d " ) was d e p e n d e n t a s a r e s u l t child's grandfather") grandmother") ( c o l l e c t i v e l y " t h e maternal grandparents") f i l e d ("the provides order. On F e b r u a r y 2, 2 0 1 0 , M a c . M. ( " t h e m a t e r n a l and AJJA"). On M a r c h 2 3 , c o u r t h e l d a p r e l i m i n a r y h e a r i n g . On M a r c h 2 5 , court entered another t h e award o f pendente l i t e 2 more d e t a i l e d order custody of the c h i l d to 1110250 the maternal father An 22, grandparents and supervised visitation awarding pending the mother a h e a r i n g on d e p e n d e n c y . a t t o r n e y was a p p o i n t e d t o r e p r e s e n t t h e f a t h e r . 2010, t h e c h i l d ' s death indicating thereafter, g u a r d i a n ad l i t e m that the father supervised-visitation order. On pendente June lite maternal modify the mother filed award had a that and aspect 2010, Th. died. to modify c o u r t ' s March court entered the the order April Shortly custody of the c h i l d denying of On a suggestion of motion 10, 2010, t h e j u v e n i l e grandparents filed i n the j u v e n i l e order continuing and t h e father's awarding the 25 another with the motion to supervised visitation. In August grandparents, each action, and juvenile court order moved child's paternal aunt, father on a f o r m juvenile substance, on their appeal filed the child's intervene visitation had r u l e d i n this a n d G.C., to sought issue the at each C a was with motions a motion denied statement that to intervene. 3 the the "motion" dependency child. at the time entered. d e s i g n a t e d as a " m o t i o n court in paternal C.C.S., i n support The the the of the to i n t e r v e n e , " but as not being, in 1110250 On ore September 21, tenus hearing on 2010, the the i s s u e of the c h i l d ' s h e a r i n g f o c u s e d on t h e m a t e r n a l the father unable to during abused the consider care hearing that, The as an to that p e r t a i n i n g o n l y to the the child receive evidence the child. continue the portion because t h e y had dependent, p e r t a i n i n g to the However, the was not of hearing been s e r v e d and i t then moved to pertaining custody intervene j u v e n i l e court September 22, 2010, the juvenile do court f i n d i n g t h e c h i l d d e p e n d e n t b a s e d on t h e h i g h amounts of p r e s c r i p t i o n p a i n m e d i c a t i o n to to a granted pendente order. On order offered of to p r o b a b l y lite" child's custody w i t h the motion to going would i s s u e of the that s t a t e d : "I'm was j u v e n i l e court The and i t i s s u e of the the he specified matter, f i l e d by the p a t e r n a l g r a n d f a t h e r . motion The grandparents maternal the that j u v e n i l e court dependency. A f t e r r e c e i v i n g such evidence, determined and initial an allegations that medications child. conducted dependency. grandparents' prescription f o r the evidence j u v e n i l e court discharge entered on his a parental standardized responsibilities. form, 4 and, on entered f a t h e r ' s use and h i s an of inability The order was that form, the 1110250 j u v e n i l e c o u r t p l a c e d a c h e c k mark to i n d i c a t e [was] found dependent." determination states: A handwritten "[At] dependent pendente l i t e . " the juvenile time child notation beside [of] I n the that "the petition S e p t e m b e r 22, that child 2010, was order, court stated: " C o u r t h e a r d t e s t i m o n y as t o d e p e n d e n c y . sworn t e s t i m o n y and e v i d e n c e , the c o u r t h e r e b y the child ... dependent due [to] inabilit discharge parental responsibilities as to child because of use of high amounts of m e d i c a t i o n s and m u s c l e r e l a x e r s . After finds y to [the] pain "Motion to intervene by [the paternal grandfather was] not served on [the maternal grandparents]. Therefore, [the maternal g r a n d p a r e n t s ' ] m o t i o n t o c o n t i n u e as t o d i s p o s i t i o n is granted. Motions to intervene as to [the p a t e r n a l g r a n d f a t h e r ] and [the p a t e r n a l g r a n d m o t h e r ] t o be h e a r d on 1 0 / 1 2 / 2 0 1 0 [ a t ] 10:00 a.m. Pending h e a r i n g , [ g u a r d i a n ad l i t e m ] t o i n q u i r e as t o [ t h e paternal grandparents] a n d [ p a t e r n a l a u n t ] as w e l l as f a t h e r [ t o ] p r o v i d e p r e s c r i p t i o n s . " (Emphasis order i s another stating: "until The to the appeal set added.) At the bottom handwritten of 1 0 / 1 2 / 2 0 1 0 as o r d e r e d Civil as b e i n g f r o m aside the the Appeals. the and 2010, juvenile court S e p t e m b e r 22, That h i s motion 5 the 22, as p r e v i o u s l y e n t e r e d . " a n o n f i n a l judgment. dismissal, September n o t a t i o n by father t i m e l y appealed Court of court The was 2010, order dismissed the f a t h e r moved t o granted. In i t s 1110250 subsequent held opinion, that the a majority of the Court juvenile court's September a n o n f i n a l judgment t h a t would Mac. M., [Ms. Civ. App. The father from t h i s C o u r t on t h e g r o u n d of first i m p r e s s i o n as and on the conflicted whether the ground with that to caselaw; then 2011] So. sought order T.C. 3d Court of Civil grounds September 6 22, § 2010, v. review issue 12-15-601 Appeals' concerned was (Ala. certiorari i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of both juvenile court's 2010, t h a t t h e c a s e p r e s e n t e d an the the 22, Appeals n o t s u p p o r t an a p p e a l . 2 1 0 0 0 3 7 , N o v e m b e r 18, 2011). of C i v i l the opinion issue o r d e r was a 1110250 final order. ground We 1 of f i r s t granted certiorari review solely on the impression. Analysis Section AJJA, 12-15-601, A l a . Code 1975, a part of the 2008 provides: "A p a r t y , i n c l u d i n g t h e s t a t e o r a n y s u b d i v i s i o n of t h e s t a t e , has t h e r i g h t t o a p p e a l a judgment o r o r d e r f r o m any j u v e n i l e c o u r t p r o c e e d i n g p u r s u a n t t o this chapter. The p r o c e d u r e f o r a p p e a l i n g these cases shall be pursuant to rules of procedure a d o p t e d by t h e Supreme C o u r t of Alabama. A l l appeals from j u v e n i l e c o u r t proceedings pursuant to t h i s chapter s h a l l take precedence over a l l other business of the court to which the appeal i s taken." T h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t e x p r e s s l y s t a t e d a t t h e h e a r i n g on September 21, 2010, t h a t i t d i d not i n t e n d t o d e t e r m i n e t h e i s s u e of the d i s p o s i t i o n of the c h i l d and f u r t h e r s t a t e d t h a t i t " w o u l d p r o b a b l y do a p e n d e n t e l i t e " o r d e r . On S e p t e m b e r 2 2 , 2 0 1 0 , t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t e n t e r e d an o r d e r f i n d i n g t h e c h i l d dependent but l e a v i n g i n p l a c e i t s award of pendente l i t e custody of the c h i l d w i t h the maternal grandparents. An order i s s u f f i c i e n t l y f i n a l to support an a p p e a l when i t addresses the d i s p o s i t i o n of the c h i l d pursuant to the f i n d i n g of dependency. See J . J . v . J.H.W., 27 S o . 3d 5 1 9 , 522 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 9 ) ( " [ A ] f o r m a l d e t e r m i n a t i o n by a j u v e n i l e c o u r t o f a c h i l d ' s d e p e n d e n c y c o u p l e d w i t h an a w a r d o f custody i n c i d e n t t o t h a t d e t e r m i n a t i o n w i l l g i v e r i s e t o an a p p e a l a b l e f i n a l judgment . . . . " ) . C f E x p a r t e J . P . , 641 S o . 2 d 2 7 6 , 278 (Ala. 1 9 9 4 ) ( e x p l a i n i n g the d i f f e r e n c e between a "temporary" c u s t o d y award and a pendente l i t e award and s t a t i n g t h a t " t h e l a n g u a g e u s e d b y t h e c o u r t s c a n be c o n f u s i n g , e s p e c i a l l y t h e l a n g u a g e s p e a k i n g o f a t e m p o r a r y a w a r d o f c u s t o d y as a f i n a l o r d e r , as o p p o s e d t o a p e n d e n t e l i t e o r d e r , w h i c h i s n o t a final order"). 1 7 1110250 The former AJJA, became e f f e c t i v e § 12-15-1 i n 1977. and discipline the juvenile court, while o f c h i l d r e n who 1 2 - 1 5 - 1 . 1 , A l a . Code governed both the dependency 120 of the by the The children former AJJA 2008 A J J A ) (amended and 1975, care, p r o t e c t i o n , responsibility r e n u m b e r e d as (civil (criminal in nature). appeals § Section 12¬ § and 12-15¬ 12-15-601 provided: " ( a ) An a g g r i e v e d p a r t y , i n c l u d i n g t h e s t a t e o r any s u b d i v i s i o n of the s t a t e , except in criminal c a s e s , d e l i n q u e n c y c a s e s and i n need o f s u p e r v i s i o n c a s e s , may appeal from a f i n a l o r d e r , judgment or d e c r e e o f t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t t o t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t by f i l i n g w r i t t e n n o t i c e o f a p p e a l w i t h i n 14 d a y s a f t e r the e n t r y of the o r d e r , judgment or decree. A l l appeals under t h i s chapter shall take precedence over a l l other business of the c o u r t to which the appeal i s taken. "(b) Upon a p p e a l , t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t s h a l l t r y t h e c a s e de n o v o a n d s h a l l p r o c e e d t o r e n d e r such j u d g m e n t as i s o t h e r w i s e p r o v i d e d f o r by l a w i n s u c h cases. " ( c ) Upon t h e r e n d i t i o n o f s u c h j u d g m e n t , t h e circuit court shall c a u s e t o be filed with the j u v e n i l e c o u r t a copy of i t s judgment which shall t h e r e u p o n become t h e j u d g m e n t o f t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t . 8 of 2008 A J J A , i n nature) r e n u m b e r e d as of security." former AJJA, l i k e the (amended and regarding Code t h e p u b l i c p e a c e and j u v e n i l e delinquency of Ala. came w i t h i n t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n acknowledging the 1975 1 5 - 1 0 1 , A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 ) . seq., I t governed "the the j u v e n i l e c o u r t to preserve § et 1110250 If the circuit court does not dismiss the p r o c e e d i n g s and d i s c h a r g e t h e c h i l d , i t s h a l l remand the c h i l d t o t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n of t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t for s u p e r v i s i o n and care under t h e terms o f t h e judgment of t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t , and t h e r e a f t e r t h e c h i l d s h a l l be and r e m a i n under t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t i n t h e same m a n n e r a s i f t h e juvenile court had rendered t h e judgment i n t h e f i r s t instance. "(d) The a p p e a l shall not stay the order, judgment o r decree appealed from b u t t h e c i r c u i t court may otherwise order, on a p p l i c a t i o n and hearing consistent with this chapter, i f suitable p r o v i s i o n i s made f o r t h e c a r e a n d c u s t o d y o f t h e child. I f t h e o r d e r , judgment o r decree a p p e a l e d from grants the custody of the c h i l d t o or withholds i t f r o m one o r more o f t h e p a r t i e s t o t h e a p p e a l , i t s h a l l be h e a r d a t t h e e a r l i e s t t i m e p r a c t i c a b l e . "(e) When a c a s e h a s b e e n e n t r u s t e d to the circuit court docket i n the f i r s t instance as provided i n Section 12-15-3, appeal shall l i e therefrom i n conformance w i t h procedures promulgated by t h e Supreme C o u r t . " In juvenile in short, court the c i r c u i t prepared under the were n o t r e c o r d e d ; court was n e c e s s a r y f o r an a p p e l l a t e this Court, Rule 2 8 , A l a . R. J u v . P. juvenile the former forum. i n 1982, amended R u l e court proceedings proceedings could Rule AJJA proceedings therefore, a trial so t h a t a record To a d d r e s s that 20, A l a . i n the R. de n o v o c o u l d be situation, J u v . P., a n d 20 was a m e n d e d t o r e q u i r e a l l t o be r e c o r d e d be p r e s e r v e d 9 so t h a t f o r appeal. a record of Rule 28 was 1110250 amended t o p r o v i d e appropriate f o r appeals appellate subsequent court. 28 was juvenile court and the c i r c u i t district provided court that to Rule juvenile noted court exercised j u v e n i l e cases) appeals shall appellate with appellate 2 8 , A l a . R. J u v . P. "Until were t o t h e c i r c u i t § provided from the de n o v o jurisdiction 12-12-72 from court (which the d i s t r i c t in certain E f f e c t i v e November 15, 1982, a l l a p p e a l s court. H o w e v e r , a 1982 amendment appeals for a trial l i edirectly appropriate of J u v e n i l e Procedure of amending Rule § 12-15-120 and § 12- court S e e Comment t o Amendment court 12- 1 5 - 1 2 0 . courts to the i n t h e comments t o respectively, that were t o t h e c i r c u i t the instances). 1985, A s we to r e c o n c i l e former 11- 3 0 ( 3 ) ( w h i c h p r o v i d e d , over the j u v e n i l e court amendments t o R u l e 28, t h e p u r p o s e 20 a n d R u l e that from A l a . Code to Rule from 1975, § 20 o f t h e R u l e s f o r the recording of testimony i n t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t . R u l e 28 was a m e n d e d a t t h e same t i m e t o allow appeals d i r e c t l y record existed." 1371 n. 2 (Ala. t o t h e a p p e l l a t e c o u r t when an a d e q u a t e S t a t e e x r e l . S.L. v . S.W., 700 S o . 2 d 1 3 6 9 , 1997). The 2 0 0 8 A J J A of the former AJJA. revised, reorganized, The 2 0 0 8 A J J A 10 and r e p e a l e d parts a l s o amended a n d r e n u m b e r e d 1110250 the provisions 18-1 et seq., pertaining this o f t h e 1984 Ala. R. J u v . P., court governed of p a r e n t a l The enacting was rights. rule of Procedure to or appellate decrees of consistent statutory with the sections 2008 to in 128, 290 So. construction AJJA. L e a g u e o f Women V o t e r s 2d 167 (1974). "In the s t a t u t e , t h i s Court should gather the i n t e n t of ... from We statute the may and 281, 283 language also the the s t a t u t e . " 2d 2009, is Ala. legislature possible. In n o t e t h a t R u l e 28, A l a . the s t a t u t e being construed. 292 actions amended t o t h e e x t e n t t h a t Code be 26¬ e f f e c t to the i n t e n t of the l e g i s l a t u r e and g i v e construing So. We judgments, i n the r u l e would Renfro, enacting orders, fundamental ascertain the t h e 2008 A J J A . final court," referenced 578 which (former § w h i c h p r o v i d e s f o r d i r e c t a p p e a l s t o an "from juvenile for 1975), C o u r t amended t h e A l a b a m a R u l e s o f J u v e n i l e consistent with the Code to the t e r m i n a t i o n be v. C h i l d Protection Act look purpose to of the statute the reason sought to Pace v. A r m s t r o n g be World itself, and necessity obtained by Indus., Inc., ( A l a . 1991). " I f p o s s i b l e , the i n t e n t of the l e g i s l a t u r e s h o u l d be g a t h e r e d f r o m t h e l a n g u a g e o f t h e s t a t u t e i t s e l f . However, i f the s t a t u t e i s ambiguous or u n c e r t a i n , t h e C o u r t may c o n s i d e r c o n d i t i o n s t h a t m i g h t a r i s e 11 i f 1110250 u n d e r t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e s t a t u t e and examine t h e r e s u l t s t h a t w i l l f l o w from g i v i n g the language i n question one particular meaning rather than another." Volkswagen of America, (Ala. I n c . v. D i l l a r d , So. 2d 1301, 1305 1991). Section 12-15-601 sentences. The of "final," the word 12-15-601 reasons father of which allows appeals s e t out juvenile below, (Emphasis court added.) the argues we was the l e g i s l a t u r e ' s disagree. The "criminal cases, delinquency cases proceeding," including juvenile and allow criminal an For "any juvenile allow appeal interlocutory 12 to § the of § from this chapter." § 12-15-120, cases except of § 12-15-120, from "any the juvenile Nothing indicates court proceeding" order. in supervision cases, delinquency cases, an a p p e a l f r o m an from sentence i n need of appeal allowing from first court children-in-need-of-supervision cases. an orders. former C l e a r l y , by amending t h e l a n g u a g e to omission § 12-15-120, pursuant predecessor, in intended three a p p e a l o f "a j u d g m e n t o r o r d e r for legislature comprises interlocutory provided cases." appeals AJJA i n former proceeding Its 2008 that from 1 2 - 1 5 - 6 0 1 p r o v i d e s f o r an any 579 and that would 1110250 The second procedure of o f § 12-15-601 p r o v i d e s t h a t f o r a p p e a l i n g t h e s e c a s e s s h a l l be p u r s u a n t procedure adopted noted e a r l i e r an sentence appeal b y t h e Supreme i n the opinion, to the c i r c u i t former Court "[t]he to rules of Alabama." § 12-15-120 p r o v i d e d f o r court f o ra t r i a l de n o v o so t h a t r e c o r d c o u l d b e made a n d t h e n a n a p p e a l f r o m t h e c i r c u i t would " l i e therefrom promulgated in conformance b y t h e Supreme C o u r t . " with r e c o r d t o b e made appeal to so t h a t c o u l d be h a d t o t h e a p p e l l a t e court. Those requirement the same of that facts Juvenile the c i r c u i t as h e a r d Procedure by t h e j u v e n i l e purpose of making a record further shortened the time AJJA direct amendments with the de n o v o o n f o r the sole a n d t h e amendments f o r appellate review. the former AJJA This i s a n d t h e 2008 i n r e u n i t i n g p a r e n t s a n d c h i l d r e n as q u i c k l y as p o s s i b l e . As t h e C o u r t o f C i v i l A p p e a l s the a trial court f o r appeal, consistent with the goal of both a d i d away court conduct Court to providef o r court Rules court this i n the juvenile the a procedures Subsequently, amended t h e A l a b a m a R u l e s o f J u v e n i l e P r o c e d u r e a As father's [ 2 0 0 8 ] AJJA, appeal: "[T]he d i dnot a l t e r stated i n i t s opinion dismissing legislature, the procedure 13 i n enacting the f o rappeals from the 1110250 juvenile the court juvenile established the P., appeals court; court authorizes the f o r appeals rather, i t by be to only of the j u v e n i l e The which govern from from juvenile court precedence over § Similarly, that appeals juvenile over the the issues The It i s clear a an Rules involving 12-15-601 from rule of for judgments, at or . ... "[a]ll shall take to which the proceedings take court to which former AJJA, Procedure time dispositional the that, appeal i s in and resolving essence. The at 14 which an 2008 A J J A p r o v i d e s h e a r i n g i n a dependency hearing, the precedence t h e 2008 A J J A , i s of the a c h i l d t o be d e p e n d e n t . adjudicatory R. f o r m e r § 12-15-120 a l s o p r o v i d e d Juvenile juveniles, of expressly provides that proceedings court the Ala. procedure orders, 3d 28, of well p r e s e n t c a s e i n v o l v e s an i n t e r l o c u t o r y a p p e a l f r o m order f i n d i n g for from other b u s i n e s s of Alabama Rule that So. the judgments a l l o t h e r b u s i n e s s of the c o u r t appeal i s taken." taken. and orders place detailed court.'" of in Thus, 'final sentence nonfinal o r d e r s and the court, third appeals left appealed. juvenile appeals from final may continues from decrees allow procedure juvenile Juv. to the case followed juvenile by court 1110250 determines child's Code the best interest. 1975. cases. phase See see also J., applicable dependency phase the Court Moore of aptly parent's by § the former S.W., Civil notes language in findings of orders of above. legislature also 911 and the § So. a opinion finding rights. the 2d in the 1 in of "final" (Ala. Civ. App. the limiting and providing i f we standards and The this to case by impacts 12-15-601, appeal from omission with by to Judge cannot presume § of the dissent dependency promulgated Clearly, 12-15-601 that dependency Code the from an Ala. phase H o w e v e r , we word procedure dependency, was in 12-15-71, adjudicatory Appeals' that of be provided for phase § i n t e n d e d t o p r o v i d e f o r an rules discussed AJJA of a dependency p r o c e e d i n g ) . omission the would dissenting)(discussing o f d e p e n d e n c y when i t f o l l o w e d to that dispositional 12-15-65(f) to fundamental legislature a F.G.W. v . 2 004)(Murdock, review the and former arrangement See § 1 2 - 1 5 - 3 1 0 a n d § 1 2 - 1 5 - 3 1 1 , A l a . Similarly, adjudicatory 1975; custodial a that the a finding a reference this Court, as inserted no i n t e r l o c u t o r y appeals to legislature were to conclude f o r appeals of a l linterlocutory i n j u v e n i l e proceedings, those 15 appeals would that the include 1110250 orders setting numerous courts, hearings other orders along with and trials, t h a t are other discovery, routinely nonfinal venue, entered juvenile entered orders by in juvenile p r o c e e d i n g s , w h i c h w o u l d i n c l u d e , b u t c e r t a i n l y n o t be to, orders juvenile the and delinquency cases, i n v o l u n t a r y commitments, Court nonfinal in of Civil orders Appeals would slow probable-cause and the order juvenile proceedings counter to a as a resolution dilatory for juvenile's intended to provide orders in As a l l o w i n g appeals of juvenile i t i s forseeable that a party could appeal nonfinal every tactic. Generally, interlocutory appeals best interest. f o r appeals limited orders. detainment p o i n t s out, Had f r o m an the order from cases, adverse delaying would finding a appealable. Accordingly, o m i s s i o n of the word " f i n a l " intent on the interlocutory note that part juvenile unlike of we do not cases interpret the f r o m § 1 2 - 1 5 - 6 0 1 as i n d i c a t i n g the legislature court order t o be other child unintended consequences of a l l o w i n g a l l n o n f i n a l orders i n j u v e n i l e be be legislature d e p e n d e n t , i t c o u l d h a v e e a s i l y d o n e so w i t h o u t t h e to and civil termination-of-parental-rights 16 to allow appealable. cases, proceedings an every We also dependency and may involve 1110250 multiple "final" closed. final, 622 appealable orders b e f o r e the j u v e n i l e case i s For example, temporary appealable orders. c u s t o d y o r d e r s a r e t r e a t e d as S e e , e . g . , C . L . v . D.H., 916 S o . 2 d ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 5 ) ( h o l d i n g t h a t o r d e r a w a r d i n g grandmother dependency primary case physical was a f i n a l custody of a appealable order maternal child in as o p p o s e d a to a pendente l i t e o r d e r ) . T h e r e f o r e , when t h e l e g i s l a t u r e e n a c t e d t h e 2008 A J J A (revising, reorganizing, the former appeal to AJJA) from a "final" the r i g h t choice, make i t may not have judgment to appeal Accordingly, dismissing we the referred a judgment in to the r i g h t to or order, but merely however, does n o t r e f l e c t a l l orders and r e p e a l i n g p a r t s o f or order. language the l e g i s l a t u r e ' s intent to juvenile proceedings a f f i r m the Court of C i v i l father's as appeal That referred being appealable. Appeals' from a judgment nonfinal judgment. AFFIRMED. Malone, and Wise, C . J . , and Woodall, Stuart, J J . , concur. Murdock, J . , concurs specially. 17 Parker, Shaw, Main, 1110250 MURDOCK, J u s t i c e As the cases, they main opinion i t i s not progress, order (concurring along the custody orders (citing C.L. notes, uncommon to are v. for in fact way. specially). generate more So. treated 916 most as 3d final, So. 2d types of "proceedings," dependency See D.H., unlike other as than one appealable (" [T]emporary at appealable 622, 625 orders.") (Ala. Civ. App. 2005)). C.L. is a case in hearing and produced at that h e a r i n g . r e c o r d and that already based concluded a custody See heard thereon."). of hearing and extant "pendente C.L., As the the child facts, lite" the order 2 and So. the evidence 2 d a t 625 28 j u d g m e n t f u l l y result, and was the appealable. ("[T]he indicate entering court in a C.L. f o r the purpose of a d d r e s s i n g the the completion i t s receipt by thus definition not of of court's evidence would appealable. the have As the as to been a court The phrase "pendente l i t e " i s L a t i n f o r " w h i l e the a c t i o n pending." B l a c k ' s Law D i c t i o n a r y 1248 (9th ed. 2009). 2 is 916 on a had of order based conducted Conversely, pending completion court evidence a t h a t t h a t j u d g m e n t was custody trial award that an o r d e r b e e n e n t e r e d m e r e l y the the t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s May i t had judgment entered which 18 1110250 i n C.L. e x p l a i n e d : indicate that 'review' the "[T]he j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s judgment the purpose h e a r i n g would extant facts." In contrast, of [a be t o f i n i s h subsequently receiving [did] not scheduled] evidence C . L . , 916 S o . 2 d 6 2 5 . i t i s clear that "to finish receiving e v i d e n c e a s t o t h e e x t a n t f a c t s " was i n d e e d t h e p u r p o s e c o n t i n u a t i o n of the hearing i n the present case. judge made i t c l e a r order to allow the maternal the motion to that and evidence announced at meantime, s h e was i n t e r r u p t i n g intervene scheduled the resumption later that grandparents by The j u v e n i l e the hearing i n to receive the paternal of the notice of g r a n d f a t h e r ; she o f t h e h e a r i n g f o r a d a t e t h r e e weeks that she time. s h e was as t o She not making would made finish i t clear a custody award receiving the that, i n the based on t h e e v i d e n c e h e a r d up t o t h a t p o i n t , b u t was m e r e l y m a i n t a i n i n g i n place the pendente earlier that date i n this the order awarding lite custody custody juvenile proceeding. i n question such arrangement i n this as would 19 case support ordered a t an I t h e r e f o r e agree was n o t a an a p p e a l . judgment
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
